Roger Nelms

Final Research Project

The United States does not provide health care to its citizens the way the rest of the industrialized world does. Instead of guaranteeing coverage for all, it relies on a patchwork system of market-based institutions in which those who are insured sometimes receive coverage as a condition of employment, sometimes purchase individual policies and sometimes obtain coverage through public programs such as Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). It's no secret that health care costs are spiraling out of control in this country. On average, we now spend more per person on health care than both food and housing. Insurance premiums are multiplying much faster than inflation, which prevents economic growth and leaves businesses with less money to give raises or hire more workers. While the quality and availability of medical care in the United States remains among the best in the world, many wonder whether we'd be better off adopting a universal government-controlled health care system like the one used in Canada. The Obama administration passed a health care bill that takes the U.S. part of the way towards a government-controlled system. How far it takes us is up for dispute. The new law is sure to be debated and modified for years to come. This project discusses whether a complete government takeover of health care should be undertaken.
. There are a number of reasons why small employers are less likely to offer health insurance than larger employers. First, the relatively high cost of underwriting and administering policies for a small number of employees makes it too costly for many of them to provide coverage. Second, small employers frequently state that their employees have access to other forms of coverage (e.g. through a working spouse), making it unnecessary to offer health insurance in order to attract workers. Third, small business owners often argue that many of their employees would never acquire coverage anyway, since turnover rates are relatively high and there is usually a waiting period before benefits kick in for new employees. Finally, since small businesses have a higher failure rate than larger firms, small employers tend to limit “fringe” benefits in order to keep costs under control. To summarize the article it's how ombamacare will affect the loss of 2.5 million full-time jobs. The White House
 claims that this will be a "good thing.” They are basically shirking the labor market with this approach. The writer talked about three points on why the Obama care laws have a negative effect on the job market. (1) Obama care’s 
employer mandate, which will discourage hiring and reduce wages offered by employers; (2) Obama care’s $1 trillion in tax increases, 
 which will discourage work and depress economic growth; and (3) the law’s $2 trillion in subsidies for low-income individuals, 
 which will discourage many from remaining in the labor force. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/02/05/white-house-its-a-good-thing-that-obamacare-will-drive-2-5-million-americans-out-of-the-workforce/) My opinion is when someone leaves the workforce it does not mean there is a job opening. A company may leave the position vacant, split the responsibilities
 amongst other people, or hire a part-time person. In the real world, it is the company hiring not a person passing their job to someone else. 
 Many people would like jobs but minimum wage keeps the least skilled out of the market and Obama care is so expensive to business that it will dampen hiring until it is replaced or collapses. I think it will have a negative outlook on the job market and taxpayers because of the increase of tax by $1 trillion dollars. Plus, jobs will stop hiring
 full time workers. I think people will respond in favor of my hypothesis. I think 15 out of 20 people will agree by saying that Ombamare will cause a negative effect on the job market and taxpayers.
Here